Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll assembled their staff for a Champagne toast to mass death on the commencement of hostilities against Iraq. Stoll called it "my war." CNN maintains a running update here of Americans killed in Ira's war.

On February 6, 2003, Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll wrote, in all seriousness, of a pending anti-war demonstration that the "the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution."

The June 9, 1995 Wall Street Journal quoted an SEC complaint against New York Sun backer Bruce Kovner as saying Kovner had "altered and destroyed" subpoenaed evidence. We wish you'd do the same to the daily print run of your God-awful newspaper, Bruce.

Also, Professor G. Harlan Reynolds alleged on August 27, 2002 - when the Sun was several months in publication - that Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll had not yet paid him for a piece authored for their inaugural issue.

Seth and Ira eschew the pedestrian: damn the historical record!; screw the pronouncements of informed experts (as opposed to Manhattan Institute "experts")!; common sense and common decency do not interest us! The only reality is that which can be divined from the mighty dozen+ pages of the Sun. This absurd and demonstrably false theory we call Stollipsism.

Ira's latest hymn to mega death and its enabler described below by our intern is merely the Sun's latest iteration of Stollipsism. Anyone with even a grade-schooler's appreciation for history would realize that the 82nd Airborne is a grossly inadequate instrument of liberation. A less pie-in-the-sky reading would suggest that our allegedly newfound clarity in bombing people with impunity would only incite others to resort to murderous and suicidal operations and forget about military confrontation altogether. But I suppose arrival at that conclusion would necessitate ignoring the SethAndIraqi Republican Guard, reading real newspapers, and heeding the example of history.

"Now it's war," declare sethandira, in case you missed yesterday's anti-tax/pro-terrorism fart, which was called "It's War." I am not really surprised that the pinheads feel the need to repeat themselves. Anyone who had the misfortune to pick up yesterday's paper without a doubt learned from their mistake; anyone who bought today's paper had no idea what journalistic horrors awaited them.

Unsurprising also, then, that "The Voucher Gap" is a lame rewording of another editorial written a couple of months ago. Now that they have decided to apply their dopey "closing the gap" bull session to the state budget, they suggest that the state of New York could save a lot of money if it would only convert all its schoolchildren to Catholicism. An odd argument from a couple of Jewish fascists.

Finally, we come to Ira's weekly George W blow job. It's so obviously Ira who wrote "Fighting for Liberty." Notice this sentence: "One of the important points that will be noted by historians in decades to come was the clarity with which the president marked the change in the nature of war that has been wrought by advanced weaponry so that today, in the president's words, 'We have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons,we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.'" Notice the way he tries to compliment the president and ends up patronizing him? That's a critical element of Stollism.

"It's hard to recall a more dramatic speech by an American president than that delivered yesterday by the commander in chief," the managing editor of something that calls itself a serious newspaper declares, and I believe Ira. After all, he is six years old.

"It's War," declares the latest anti-tax/pro-poverty screed to come out of Sethandiranistan. Keeping things in perspective, the dyspeptic duo lard their idiotorial with enough martial rhetoric that one would think they were talking about something fun, like slaughtering Arab children.

They refer to ending rent control as "a weapon of political mass destruction," and warn of the governor "going nuclear" on rent control if the legislature doesn't follow marching orders -- you know, close down schools, cut taxes for "Fats" Steinhardt.

Do the terrorist supporting tax-cutters in America understand that every city, county, state, and the whole damn country is flat broke and deep in debt because of tax cuts, and not the absence them? That's not what Lord Black of Crossharbour wants to read, I'm sure.

On an unrelated track, I would like to note that, for some reason, Chambers Street's favorite sanitary napkin continues to run the bigoted rantings of that overfed lecher, James Taranto. Sad to say his maniacal warblogging is generally more readable than the excrement which fills the edit page, though Mr. Taranto is, from what I've heard, far more offensive and unpleasant than the (again, what I've heard) monstrously offensive and unpleasant editors of the Sun. Perhaps they run his tripe to make themselves feel loved, if only by comparison.

Just to Lipsky-back on Bro. Olivier's comments below, doesn't the idiotic tax editorial (I know what you're thinking -- "Which one?") in today's Sun bear a shameful resemblance to the "Lucky Duckies" manifesto in the Wall Street Journal? The point of that little exercise in supporting terrorism was to argue that taxes on the poor should be made higher, because with poor people paying so little in taxes they are not sufficiently anti-tax in their politics. That someone would dust off that moronic argument, thin it of any intellectual flotsam, and spin in into an argument AGAINST A TAX CREDIT FOR POOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO PAY THEIR BILLS ON THEIR OWN strikes me as beyond mean, stupid, and limp-dicked. It is the apex of Stollism.

In the one-plus year I've been manning this site, I should have been compiling a list of things Sun editor Ira "Colt 45 & Cadillacs" Stoll has demonstrated he knows nothing about. It's length would by now be formidable. On Saturday Brad Olson found a New York Press article which showed Ira's subaltern's uniformly hate him, a sure sign that the idiot manchild from MA knows fuck-all about management. A scan of the photos from the Sun BYOB celebration on the mediabistro site show that Ira knows even less about piecing together an ensemble, and is unable to even keep his tie fastened straight.

Today Demographer Stoll calls Planned Parenthood's "campaign for smaller families among the poor" a "patronizing, Malthusian effort." Has he ever read Malthus, and does he know what the word 'Malthusian' means?

Similarly off-base is his reading of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Stoll, who edits what he calls in his editorial a "pro-family" newspaper, makes the dubious claim that the EITC provides a strong disincentive to work, providing an example of how the program allegedly would urge someone to work 35 hours weekly to and receive a $2,000 credit instead of working 40 hours weekly without a credit. Why pro-family Ira would want a working parent away from the house - and their children - for as many hours as possible is baffling. Does he really think that even if his questionable assertion of disincentives is at all true, benefit accrues to the family by having its members as estranged as possible?

If you're so anti-welfare, why object to the $30 billion EITC program and not unelected Resident Bush's Permanent Assistance for Plutocratic Families program?

I'm sure Bruce Kovner's supplied him with the answers, and I'm sure the falt tax Ira's pushing will help these people.

In "Lie After Lie," an editorial dispatch from intellectually impoverished SethAndIranistan, the two morons from Massachusetts fume that Lemrick Nelson's change of tack, admitting to stabbing Yankel Rosenbaum but saying that he was fuelled by beer not hatred, "mocks Jews." A few pages later they run a photo of two very self-satisfied orthodox Jews holding up a 40-ounce bottle of Colt 45 malt liquor, chuckling that "The defense is in this bag." I found no mention of Colt 45 or malt liquor in reports on the new trial's opening statement, but I guess it's just common knowledge that them there Black folks just loves them some icy cool, smooth Colt 45. Why not go the whole nine brandish a bucket of fried chicken?